Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 17.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Chiranjib Pal Chowdhury (Manager, Axis Bank India); Respondents – State of West Bengal & Anr.
  • Proceeding: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRR 2357 of 2023) seeking quash of criminal case G.R. No. 11338 of 2022 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, arising from Belgharia Police Station case No. 594 of 2022 dated 23‑Nov‑2022.
  • Loan Details: Axis Bank approved a credit facility of Rs 7,08,000 for purchase of a Maruti Dezire vehicle. Down‑payment of Rs 1,25,328 was to be paid by the borrower; monthly instalment of Rs 11,427 was to commence on 1‑Aug‑2018 for 84 months. Agreement executed on 5‑Jul‑2018.
  • Default: Borrower paid 43 instalments, then stopped payments and failed to surrender the vehicle despite reminders. Bank issued notice on 19‑May‑2021 demanding payment of outstanding dues.
  • Arbitration: Dispute referred to an arbitrator; borrower did not participate. Arbitration award dated 5‑Jun‑2022 declared Axis Bank as owner of the hypothecated vehicle.
  • Repossession: Vehicle repossessed by Axis Bank on 19‑Aug‑2022 through its agency M/S Bharat Repossession Unit; inventory list prepared and vehicle parked in authorised yard. Bank intimated Officer‑in‑Charge, Belgharia Police Station on 20‑Aug‑2022, issuing a pre‑sale notice and demanding payment for the vehicle.
  • Criminal Complaint: On 23‑Nov‑2022, Belgharia Police Station registered FIR No. 594/22 under Sections 34, 149, 323, 474, 384, 506 IPC, alleging criminal conspiracy, intimidation, assault, and theft related to the repossession.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued FIR contains no material offence by the bank or its employee; dispute is civil under hire‑purchase agreement; FIR should be quashed to prevent coercion of the bank.
  • State’s Submissions: Claimed complaint was lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 alleging assault and vehicle snatching; alleged threat to complainant and his son; sought dismissal of revision.
  • Judicial Analysis: Court examined facts, noting that repossession occurred on 19‑Aug‑2022, coinciding with the arbitration award and inventory preparation. Documents showed bank acted under RBI‑guided repossession procedures. Cited Supreme Court decisions (Chiranjib Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, Anup Sharma v. Bholanath Sharma, Sukanta Saha Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal) establishing that recovery of possession under a hire‑purchase agreement is a civil matter, not a criminal offence.
  • Conclusion of Analysis: No material evidence of criminal conduct by the petitioner; FIR appears to be an after‑thought to obstruct bank’s lawful repossession.

Final Outcome

  • The revision petition (CRR 2357 of 2023) is allowed.
  • All connected applications are disposed of.
  • The criminal proceeding (Belgharia Police Station case No. 594/2022) is quashed with respect to the petitioner.
  • The case diary is to be returned.
  • An urgent certified copy of the order shall be provided to the parties upon compliance with procedural requirements.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Hire‑Purchase Recovery, Banking Regulation